Cincy TV News Calls Out PIers Morgan’s False Anti-Gun Stats

During his raucous interview with rabble rouser Alex Jones, CNN’s Piers Morgan unleashed several false gun statistics to show how wonderful his British homeland is for its gun banning ways. But Cincinnati’s Fox affiliate WXIX didn’t let Morgan get away with it thoroughly debunking the CNNer’s false stats.

With his January 8 “Reality Check” segment, WXIX’s Ben Swann completely undermined Morgan’s gauzy claim that Britain’s gun banning ways makes his countrymen safer compared to the wild west that is the U.S.A.

During the interview with Alex Jones, Morgan kept blathering about how Great Britain only had 35 murders with guns in 2011. That is compared to 11,000 murders with guns in the U.S. Morgan piously maintained that this made Great Britain’s laws better.

But Swann used real statistics to show that Morgan’s claims are misleading in general and just plain wrong in specifics.

Swann not only showed that the U.S. has a lower violent crime rate than 28 other countries, but that it is also safer to live here, despite that we are number one in the world for gun ownership, than it is to live in Morgan’s beloved Great Britain.

We wanted to take a look at some of that exchange because the stat that Piers Morgan was continuing to cite, one that Great Britain which banned guns about 15 years ago had only 35 gun-related murders in 2011 compared to the United States which had 11,000. Let’s start there because that number is not correct.

According to FBI crime stats for 2011 there were 12,664 homicides in the U.S. Of those 8,583 were caused by firearms. But of those, 400 are listed as justifiable homicide by law enforcement. 260 justifiable homicide by private citizens.

On the other hand, it is true that percentage-wise Britain has a lower gun homicide rate. With a population of 62.6 million, Great Britain saw 59 gun-related homicides for 2011.

Still, not the 35 that Piers Morgan keeps citing.

But that shouldn’t be surprising that the gun homicide rate in a country that bans guns would be lower than in the country where guns are not banned. Where the argument falls apart is when you attempt to claim that fewer guns equals less crime.

The U.S. has the highest gun ownership rate in the world. An average of 88 guns per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership.

Yemen is second with 54.8 guns per 100 people.

So that means the U.S. has the highest gun murder rate as well, right?

Well, no.

Honduras, El Salvador, and Jamaica have higher rates. So do 24 other countries. The U.S., despite being number one in gun ownership, is number 28 in gun homicide with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people.

Of course, Piers Morgan isn’t calling for the U.S. to be more like El Salvador and Honduras, he’s calling for us to be more like Great Britain. So, what do the numbers look like there?

The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU. The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate, the fourth highest burglary rate. But more importantly, the EU named Britain as the most violent country in the EU.

In the UK there are 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people. That puts it way ahead of even South Africa with a rate of 1,609 per 100,000.

In the United States, we’re not even in the top ten. The U.S. has a violent crime rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents.

So, what this means for you is that while people like Morgan insist that the U.S. can learn from Great Britain… well, maybe we can. What we might learn is that violent crime is not the result of a gun or any tool, it is the result of the heart of men and women. And that is Reality Check.

Given that (IIRC) the “about the author” blurb on his own autobiography says that he was born in Kenya, is this a surprise?

Say, have you got any statistics on the percentage of democrats who believe that George Bush blew up the levees in New Orleans or the World Trade Center?

SteveCrickmore075

yes 9 /11 truthers are nuts, but the libertarian extremists like Alex Jones dominate that movement

herddog505

Ah. LIBERTARIANS dominate the Troofer movement. Silly me: I thought that they were mostly liberals.

Libertarian, liberal, potato, potahto…

SteveCrickmore075

democracy now, NPR your USA classic liberal media, or George Monbiot http://www.monbiot.com/2007/02/12/short-changed/ of the Guardian ,or the ultra liberal counterpunch has exposed the truther movement. libertarians like Alex Jones and Ron Paul, Gary Johnson share more in common with conservatives..hate anything to do with the government, social welfare schemes…yes. they don’t much care for elites, conservative center or left. or a strong military or banking sector.. yes an oversimplification.

More at the link above. These are all lefties. These are all far left, lefties. While I appreciate your desire to separate yourself from idiots such as these, the left owns them. In a couple of more years you will be doing the same thing with the few remaining warmists.

SteveCrickmore075

my bad. obviously the left has a serious problem with these liberal nuts…but actors aeren’t known for much political sense , i’m just thankful robert redford or paul newman isn’t on the list.. if 9/11 had happened during Clinton’s reign, say in 2000, who knows how many conservatives would have taken just as ludicrous a position?

jim_m

Like your warmist religion the left is psychotically separated from reality:

A full 22.6% of Democrats said it was “very likely.” Another 28.2% called it “somewhat likely.”

That is: More than half of Democrats, according to a neutral survey, said they believed Bush was complicit in the 9/11 terror attacks.

You allege that conservatives would have blmed Clinto for 0/11 had it happened on his watch. But however many conservatives believed that Clinton had some connection, I doubt that it would ever be more than half

jim_m

Warmism is a religion. It has its heretics and apostates and it ignores the simple truth that the earth is not warming and has not warmed for over 15 years now. The fact is that the reason Kyoto and the IPCC in general have failed is because warmism was never about science but about left wing totalitarian overreach.

SteveCrickmore075

2012 was the hottest year in recorded history in continental USA and we haven’t even got really warmed up. Who could have predicted that..the global warming denialists? Tomorrow’s forecast will be 65 degrees F, in Cleveland, for example.. which means in two decades we will be hitting highs probably of low 70’s, in the north-east in January ..it is already too late to be reversed.

jim_m

I’m sorry… When did the USA become all of the globe much less all of North America? What you cite is called weather. Like all warmists you look at everything and believe that it is a sign of global warming. It’s almost a cult in its behavior.

You claim that warming is too late to be reversed (despite no evidence of any warming for a decade and a half) and yet you believe that we should be making efforts to stop it. Your own statements of belief are internally inconsistent.

That’s why AGW is a bunch of bunk. Fools like you see the local weather and think that because it is warm outside your front door that it must be the same everywhere. It isn’t. Instead what you do is dismiss the suffering of others as insignificant. Your beliefs are unscientific and are the basis of nothing more than a false religion.

While you are at it you can follow the links here to learn about how your local weather is simply not reflective of the global weather.

**In California, we are having the worst cold snap in decades. **An analysis of temperatures in Alaksa (sic) show that the state seems to be returning to an Ice Age, with the average temperature declining 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 10 years. **China is experiencing its coldest winter in thirty years, and its “climate change” has noticeably chilled its economy.

herddog505

Oh, you know better than that! Cold winters are also due to global warming. Seriously: that’s what lefties claim:

China is enduring its coldest winter in nearly 30 years. Brazil is in the grip of a dreadful heat spell. Eastern Russia is so freezing — minus 50 degrees Fahrenheit, and counting — that the traffic lights recently stopped working in the city of Yakutsk.

As many of us “deniers” have said for years, EVERYTHING is due to global warming. What a sweet theory it is.

SteveCrickmore075

It is quite early in the year 2013, but let us look at where it is summer. Because of it’s location as a continent Australia is the real canary in the coal mine of global warming and climate change..

“ It’s been a summer like no other in the history of Australia, where a sprawling heat wave of historical proportions is entering its second week. Monday, January 7, was the hottest day in Australian history, averaged over the entire country, according to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. The high temperature averaged over Australia was 105°F (40.3°C), eclipsing the previous record of 104°F (40.2°C) set on 21 December 1972. Never before in 103 years of record keeping has a heat wave this intense, wide-spread, and long-lasting affected Australia. The nation’s average high temperature exceeded 102°F (39°C) for five consecutive days January 2 – 6, 2013–the first time that has happened since record keeping began in 1910″.

The spectrum is changing inexorably because of climate change we are getting more extreme weather, tilted towards more intense summer temperatures and more moderate winters, but yes this is still an increase of less than one tenth a degree farenheit a year,so there will be many swings, but the rate is alarming.

jim_m

Once more for the slow: You are citing localized weather issues. I have cited countervailing weather issues. What is really important is global climate. There is no study demonstrating any global warming over the last 16 years. Even honest warmists admit this much.

You can cite local weather phenomena all you like. It just makes you look like a nut case fanatic and religious zealot. I mean seriously, you are citing the fact that some nations are having a warm summer as proof of global warming.

jim_m

For while the mercury peaked at 42.3 C last Tuesday at Observatory Hill in Sydney – more than 222 years ago at 1.00pm on the 27th Dec 1790 (measured at a location just stones-throw from Observatory Hill) the mercury hit 108.5 F (42.5 C) before peaking at 109 F (42.8 C) at 2.20pm.

So 222 years ago, Australia was actually warmer that what it was last week. And you are crying “Global Warming” the sky is falling!!!!!!

If perhaps you understod what global warming would really entail and what science really is, people might actually take you seriously. But then again, you wouldn’t be spouting off silly things like Australia is warmer now than it ever was..

SteveCrickmore075

I said the average high temperatures for the entire continent ..”The high temperature averaged over Australia was 105°F (40.3°C), eclipsing the previous record of 104°F (40.2°C) set on 21 December 1972. Never before in 103 years”

you are crying “Global Warming” the sky is falling!!!!!!

Try telling that to the Pentagon

“The Pentagon itself stated unequivocally in its February 2010 in its Quadrennial Defence Review Report (pdf), “Climate change and energy are two key issues that will play a significant role in shaping the future security environment.” It noted the department of defence is actively “developing policies and plans to manage the effects of climate change on its operating environment, missions and facilities”.

CNA Corporation, a nonprofit that conducts research for the Navy and Marines, echoed the Pentagon’s urgency, writing, “Climate change, from the Military Advisory Board’s perspective, presents significant risks to America’s national security.” The Army Environmental Policy Institute, the National Intelligence Council and the Centre for a New American Security have issued similar reports on the dangers of runaway climate change and what it could mean for geopolitics.”

Has the Pentagon suddenly become a hotbed for lefties.

“Climate cranks (such as inhabit wizbang)– many of them the same people perpetually hectoring us about the perils of national security – are choosing to ignore the seriousness of climate change even when the national-security experts they champion are telling us to do just that. Talk about cherry-picking data”

herddog505

There’s considerabl room for doubt that 2012 was the hottest year on record. I direct your attention to a recent article at Powerline.com that discusses in some detail that “adjustments” being made to temperature records. In effect, the gorebots are systematically altering the temperature records to make damned sure that it shows warming.

Here is a typical example of what Ken uncovered. Below is a copy of the national weather data summary for February 1934. If we look at, say Arizona, for the month we see that the state average temperature for that month was 52.0°F.

….

However, if we look at the current NCDC temperature analysis (which runs from 1895-present) we see that for Arizona in February 1934 they have a state average of 48.9°F, not the 52.0°F that was originally published… [emphasis original]

It’s quite a neat little scam: adjust the history so that the present appears much worse, with the goal of getting more people to believe that ZOMG! WE GOTTA DO SOMETHING!

http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

You can’t take original data and adjust it, not unless you can prove that your equipment was originally messed up and THEN determine a correction factor.

(And on a data set that’s close to 80 years old, it damn well better not be NOW you’re finding it was over 3 degrees off THEN!)

SteveCrickmore075

According to NOAA scientists, the average temperature for the contiguous U.S. for 2012 was 55.3°F, which was 3.2°F above the 20th century average and 1.0°F above the previous record from 1998.

We know it is getting hotter because wizbang never has any posts on global warming, climate change any more. Why is that?

herddog505

Would that be based on the same temperature records that appear to be cooked?

What’s amusing is, just a couple of years ago when the east coast got pounded by record snowfalls, THAT was global warming, too.

http://www.facebook.com/stevecrickmore Steve Crickmore

that was climate change or global wierding, more extreme weather http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/11/1438421/climate-silence-d “The Assessment, put together by dozens of the country’s top climate experts, makes clear that if we stay anywhere near our current emissions path, we are headed towards a devastating 9°F to 15°F warming over most of the United States (this century), with ever-worsening extreme weather, heat waves, deluges and droughts. As the report notes “generally, wet [areas] get wetter and dry get drier.” Future generations will be wishing for the boring “moist” and “cool” days of 2012 (when they aren’t cursing our names).”

herddog505

Oh, for pity’s sake! Do you realize how silly this all sounds? In one post, you cry “global warming!” because it happens to be warm where you live. Then, when it’s presented to you that it’s damned cold elsewhere in the world (so cold that it’s killing people), it’s “climate change” or “climate weirding” or whatever term you care to use. Is there ANY weather event, including the rain that we’re getting in my part of No. Carolina, that CAN’T be laid at the feet of… oh, whatever term you gorebots are using today?

And you can save yourself a bit of trouble citing all these impressive-sounding reports from “top climate scientists” as enough of them have proved to be frauds, con artists and hucksters that just about anything they care to write is suspect. Frankly, there are televangelists who have more integrity than this pack of liars.

But what you CAN do is answer the following:

1. Has there been warming in the past decade?*

2. How many of these ZOMG! DOOOOOOOM!!!! predictions have these clowns made that have NOT panned out?

===

(*) Even one of the chief hucksters, Phil Jones, has admitted that there has been no warming in the past SIXTEEN YEARS.

I’m starting to think that you’re right. I’ve read that people compare the global warming hoax to a religion, and there’s something to be said for that view. Remember a couple of years ago when that screwball pastor* convinced his flock that the End Times were upon us and they they needed to sell off their worldly goods in preparation for the Rapture (or whatever they thought was going to happen)? Then, when he proved to be wrong, they STILL believed him when he claimed that, gee whiz! he was off by a few months, but it was still a-coming?

It’s the same thing. No matter what the weather does, it’s global warming. How can you argue with a belief like that???

===

(*) I use the term loosely as I’m not sure that he was (shall we say?) playing for the right team.

http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

Lol. I know what you mean re the ‘pastor’. And I think the comparison of AGW to a religion is becoming more and more apt – and it’s a rather apocalyptic religion at that. The adherents don’t want to be told there might not be a problem, that there isn’t any statistical warming, that driving up energy prices won’t do anything but make everything more expensive…

I really think that they’ve got this sense that anything above a poverty-level 3rd world existence is shameful and sinful – and they see themselves as avenging and saving Gaia somehow.

And really, as far as AGW goes I’m all about the numbers. I think there’s warming going on, I think it’s been going on for about 8000 years according to Ruddiman’s work on Anthropogenic Global Warming, and it was caused by the discovery of agriculture – and we’re about tapped out on what we can do to increase the heat. I’m also of the opinion that solar influence is important – and in the early days of AGW solar input was dismissed as being irrelevant, the data that was used to support their claims was adjusted (with the adjustments ‘conveniently lost’) and the ‘models’ themselves were (and still are) black boxes they won’t allow to be examined.

That isn’t science. That’s a scam.

And to make matters worse, it looks like we’re going into a few more decades of low solar activity. The last time that happened, we ended up with the Little Ice Age. Which, with the greens hamstringing our energy base and having us turn food crops into unwanted ethanol, will be so joyful for all.

cirby

It was “the hottest year” only because they puled a fast one.

You see, when the US temperature numbers are reported, the first ones to come in ALWAYS come from the city and airport-based stations. That means the ones that are suffering from Urban Heat Island effects (UHI) come in first. Weeks later, the out-of-town stations get around to reporting – and their numbers are always much, much lower. There’s an adjustment for UHI on the bigger stations (not as big an adjustment as it should be), but the result of adding in the rural stations is to lower the reported figures.

What they did to get the “record highs” was to take the early (urban) figures, run them through the stats calculations, and report them – without waiting to add in the rural stations that moderate the result.

In a month or two, there will be an “adjustment” that lowers the “US temps” – there always is. They won’t announce it to the world, though… it’ll just appear on the website somewhere.

You might also note that while a couple of regions (US and Australia) had moderately high temps, much of the globe had REALLY cold temperatures. – enough to more than make up for the localized heat in the US and Australia.

Alex Jones might have made these points himself, on the spot, had he not been busy acting like what he is — a raving loony.

http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

What can I say? When you’re across from another loon, it’s hard not to go the same route. Ol’ Piers didn’t want to have a discussion, he wanted an argument where he could slap his opponent down with little repercussion.

But as it is, the stats are right. Highest average of firearms per capita ought to lead to highest violence, if there’s a correlation between handguns and violence. Yet as we’ve gotten more handguns and rifles into the country, the violence rate’s gone down, instead of up.

Violent gun shootings and wounds have risen dramatically in the US, in the last two decades. What are down are gun homicides because of better emergency trauma medical careBy GARY FIELDS and CAMERON MCWHIRTER

In October 2012, The

Wall Street Journal got an inside look at the “ballet of organized chaos” that is a normal shift at the R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center in Baltimore, MD.

BALTIMORE—The number of U.S. homicides has been falling for two decades, but America has become no less violent.

Crime experts who attribute the drop in killings to better policing or an aging population fail to square the image of a more tranquil nation with this statistic: The reported number of people treated for gunshot attacks from 2001 to 2011 has grown by nearly half.

“Did everybody become a lousy shot all of a sudden? No,” said Jim Pasco, executive director of the National Fraternal Order of Police, a union that represents about 330,000 officers. “The potential for a victim to survive a wound is greater than it was 15 years ago.”

In other words, more people in the U.S. are getting shot, but doctors have gotten better at patching them up. Improved medical care doesn’t account for the entire decline in homicides but experts say it is a major factor.

LiberalNightmare

Improved medical care doesn’t account for the entire decline in homicides but …

Guest

most of it

LiberalNightmare

opinion? or can you back that claim up?

SteveCrickmore075

it is major factor…yes

Brucehenry

I read somewhere that had medical technology and techniques been at 1970-era levels, the casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan would have been an order of magnitude higher, too.

jim_m

Well the good news is that with the declining medical care that we will receive with obamacare and with an imminent shortage of physicians, we will correct the advantage that improved medical care has given us and more people will die. That should please the left.

http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

Morbid, but funny none the less…

Vagabond661

Along those morbid lines:

If more public sector employees than private sector employees died due to declining medical care, would that help or hurt the economy?

LiberalNightmare

After reading JLawsons reply, it seems like your posting is somewhat fact challenged.

herddog505

There is much in what you say. However, the basic truth remains:

Despite (or, perhaps, because of) the fact that Americans are among the most heavily-armed people on earth, we actually have one of the safest societies and lowest crime rates.

http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

Um, no.

FBI: U.S. violent crime down in 2011, fewer murders, rapes

Murders, rapes and other violent crimes dropped sharply in the United States in the first six months of 2011, continuing a downward trend that has lasted 4 1/2 years, the FBI reported on Monday.

The federal law enforcement agency said preliminary January-through-June figures showed the number of violent crimes declined 6.4 percent from the previous year, led by a 5.7 percent drop in murders and a 5.1 percent decrease in rapes.

Violent crimes went down about the same amount in all four regions of the country and decreased in big cities, smaller cities and rural areas.

Property crimes, such as burglary, larceny, theft and motor vehicle theft, also declined in the first half of the year, with burglaries down 2.2 percent, larceny and theft down 4.0 percent and stolen vehicles down 5.0 percent.

The separate arson category declined 8.6 percent in the first six months of the year, the FBI said.

FBI stats are showing a decline, at least until 2011. The 2012 stats aren’t available yet from them.

I’m curious where you get that info on violent shootings and wounds in the US, other than the WSJ. I’m not finding any numbers that indicate it’s correct – and most articles I’m finding use the WSJ as a reference without any other corroboration.

The Wall Street Journal over the weekend used Baltimore and the world-renowned Maryland Shock Trauma Center as the setting for a story saying hospital statistics show gun violence nationwide was “soaring,” and that a continuing national decline in homicides in spite of this trend was improved trauma care.

The article doesn’t go into city-specific data. But at least in Baltimore, those findings go against most every measure of crime available, and indeed Shock Trauma’s own statistics.

…

In fiscal year 2009, which is how the trauma center collects data, there were 414 people from the region treated there for gunshot wounds that were the result of assaults, according to internal demographics reports. That declined to 347 in 2009-2010, and 306 in 2011-2012. That’s a drop of 26 percent.

In comparison, during the 2008 to 2011 calendar years, police statistics show total shootings declined 29 percent — within the margin of error of Shock Trauma’s data.

The WSJ’s article hinges on the statements by Dr. Thomas Scalea, the physician-in-chief at Shock Trauma – but his statements contradict the numbers. Perhaps being in the thick of things doesn’t give someone the entire picture…

LiberalNightmare

Takes one to smell one.

Oysteria

We agree whole heartedly on that one, Bruce. And Piers is a grade-A officious prick.

I’m sure these two guys wouldn’t mind at all if a couple of black panthers waved assault rifles on the sidewalk in front of their kids’ school. it would just be some guys showing off their constitutional rights.

It just depends on whose caring the guns. If it is white racist extreme right group, that is always o’kay but…..”when the Black Panthers in the 1960s advocated for an individual right to arms, “It was people like Governor Ronald Reagan who pushed for gun control. He signed the Mulford Act, which essentially made it illegal to carry guns in public, illegal to carry guns in a car,” which (she said that) the NRA supported, because it was aimed at curtailing the Black Panther movement.” Funny how that works.

Commander_Chico

That was after this display for gun rights – on the steps of the California State House.

Ballsy as hell.

herddog505

SteveCrickmore075 – It just depends on whose caring the guns.

True enough. For example, democrats took good care for decades to make sure that blacks couldn’t.

But enough playing the race card.

I suggest that the ban came about because violent GROUPS were carrying arms to the terror of society.

What violent GROUP is the target of today’s gun control proposals? What “white racist extreme right group” is out on the streets with guns? The present gun control push, in common with others over the past few decades, is in response to a few loonies committing outrages. Libs being libs, the response is to punish the millions of law-abiding citizens who AREN’T committing crimes with their guns.

http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

The violent group is the entire class of gun owners. Never mind they’re law-abiding, never mind that the vast, vast majority of them would never do anything like shoot up a school.

It’s the theory of collective guilt. A nutcase uses illegally obtained guns to shoot up a theater, or a school, then all gun owners who obey the law are equally guilty and must have their rights restricted.

I’ve seen that a lot in beginning computer techs. Trouble with the system? Replace the hard drive. Trouble with the OS? Replace the hard drive. Trouble with the video? Replace the hard drive. You’ve got to whack them over the head and go “It’s not the hard drive, dummy – troubleshoot the problem” and then they dig a bit deeper and find a device driver problem or a different hardware problem or just the user messing around with settings.

They either learn to troubleshoot, or they don’t. I’ve seen a lot of folks fail to learn that – I don’t know why they can’t go beyond “I think the problem is this, so that’s what I’ll change” to “I need to see what the problem really is, then I’ll figure out a solution.”

What we see in Reid, Obama, Biden and Pelosi are people who KNOW what the problem is regarding guns, and they won’t accept any possibility that they are wrong. So they keep doing the same things – not really looking at the problem (any of the problems we have) and going “I know what’s wrong, and what will fix it.”

They need to put the legislation down, back away from the problem, and approach it from a perspective of “Let’s see just what is going on, what’s been tried before, what’s worked and what hasn’t, and THEN try to figure out an approach that might work.”

And that’ll happen when pigs fly (Geico commercials not applicable in this case) over Mecca.

jim_m

Wrong. While I object to people brandishing weapons irresponsibly I object more to the notion that the government will restrict my rights in response to people who will not obey the law in the first place. I don’t object to anyone of any color being armed. I object to the government disarming me and doing nothing about the criminals.

It’s not a little ironic that you hold up the Black Panthers as an example of unfairly disarming people and use that to excuse unfairly disarming people today. Just because the government erred in the past is not an excuse to repeat that error, even if it does align with your ideology.

Commander_Chico

I’d like to see the measure of “violent crime.”

Brits do have a problem with alcohol-fueled violence. I’d rather be in a bar in the south side of Chicago than in a pub in Glasgow.

Then again, Brits might be charging more violent crimes, too. How many barroom fist fights get charged in the USA and end up in the stats? Not too many.

Focusing on the one and only Piers Morgan for a sec. I ran across independent evidence of how much the Brits despise this guy a few days ago. Everyone has heard about the dueling petitions: in the U.S. to cancel his visa and in the UK to not let him back in the country. Well, being a resident of a foreign country, I have the freedom to access P2P sites to download movie and TV videos. Since our household is addicted to British produced crime and mystery programming, a la the PBS Mystery series, we downloaded and watched something called “A Touch Of Cloth” shot last year. For fellow Brit mystery aficionados, it was a two part parody of the long running Brit crime drama “A Touch Of Frost.”

To make a long story short a running gag in the program was the repeated appearance of photos of Piers Morgan at the crime scenes. The first mention of him in the script used the term “the irritating Piers Morgan.” Apparently, therefore, his TV career is due, first, to the ability of the government controlled BBC to foist anybody and anything on their helpless audience, and, then, for pseudo-intellectual news channels, such as CNN, their eagerness to hire pseudo-intellectual British twits to speak down to the uninformed masses. Anyway, it’s abundantly clear they dislike this guy across the pond as much as the U.S. public does.

914

Peerz can leave and take Barack with him.

Brian_R_Allen

It seems Piers Stefan Dying-Children’s-Phone-Hacker Pughe-Morgan; born and also known as Piers Stefan O’Meara; hates America almost as much as his previous apparently adapted country hates him.

So perhaps he could spare us and them, both — and bugger off straight back to Moscow or Peking or wherever-the Hell he really belongs!